psyche101 31,678

psyche101
31,678

When I see people saying things like this I wonder if they even stop to think before they engage their mouth. Insurgencies happen all the time and are generally successful in causing a truce or peace treaty. Vietnam and Afghanistan come to mind...

When I see people I wonder if they revered to engage their brain. The year is 2018. We don't fight with rifles and shotguns. One drone can reduce a town of ten thousand to one thousand with no effort.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

lost_shaman 2,858

lost_shaman
2,858

And if your military is responding, again, guns in homes is pointless in such a situation.

Our Military is prohibited by the Constitution from operating inside the U.S. against 'us'. That's where an armed Militia would or might come into play. Any way the 2nd Amendment also says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", and it doesn't say anything about a tyrannical government. It says' "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,".

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

lost_shaman 2,858

lost_shaman
2,858

When I see people I wonder if they revered to engage their brain. The year is 2018. We don't fight with rifles and shotguns. One drone can reduce a town of ten thousand to one thousand with no effort.

I guess you could do that psyche if your goal was to genocide a population! But if you actually want to defeat an enemy army without killing thousands of innocent civilian non-combatants then yes you still need Men/Women with rifles.

2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

and then 33,879

and then
33,879

I guess you could do that psyche if your goal was to genocide a population! But if you actually want to defeat an enemy army without killing thousands of innocent civilian non-combatants then yes you still need Men/Women with rifles.

It demonstrates a dangerous mindset for people who say they value freedom. It's also kind of insulting to say Americans can't be as successful at an insurgency Afghan tribesmen. The greatest disconnect that I see with such "logic" is that the government cannot go on indefinitely without a strong economy and uninterrupted tax base. A small handful of militia that has the support of half or more of the country could fight for YEARS. Of course, that assumes there would be many who would be willing to risk death in the cause. Those who think most Americans would docilely allow themselves and their children to be enslaved by a Federal government just don't understand Americans. Just as we were told for so long that fighting against terrorists would just have the blowback effect of generating new terrorists, so would killing Americans who are defending their God-given rights.

2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

psyche101 31,678

psyche101
31,678

Our Military is prohibited by the Constitution from operating inside the U.S. against 'us'. That's where an armed Militia would or might come into play. Any way the 2nd Amendment also says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", and it doesn't say anything about a tyrannical government. It says' "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,".

That's contradictory, well regulated does not mean hand every person in the country a gun as far as I understand the terms.

It sounds a heck of a lot more like the gun regulation we have to be honest.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

psyche101 31,678

psyche101
31,678

I guess you could do that psyche if your goal was to genocide a population! But if you actually want to defeat an enemy army without killing thousands of innocent civilian non-combatants then yes you still need Men/Women with rifles.

Why would a tyrannical government care? Its not hard to calculate strikes to leave isolated populations at the mercy of overwhelming invading forces. With over 7 billion on earth, it wouldn't be detrimental to thin out the population for any invading force.

If it was a US leader gone rouge with enough military behind them to effect a coup, reducing an armed population to 10% would make a takeover easy, and populations are quickly replenished or replaced.

If the locals are armed, then they justify mass killing like that. Again, reduce the population to a fraction and dominate.

A shotgun or Rifle in every home is no deterrent whatsoever in today's world against such scenarios. Weaponry is too sophisticated. Might as well break our some slingshots with those shotguns for all the effect they would have on a modern militarised force.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

lost_shaman 2,858

lost_shaman
2,858

That's contradictory, well regulated does not mean hand every person in the country a gun as far as I understand the terms.

The phrase "A well regulated Militia" has never really been defined as far as I know, so this is why different groups around the Country do in fact sometimes form "Militias" and go out in the woods and train. We may soon see a lot more of that type of activity in the near future if things keep going like they are going now!

At any rate the part of the 2nd Amendment we are actually concerned with here is the second part, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This has been upheld by the courts with a couple of exceptions, i.e. Felons and Mentally ill persons for example are not allowed to own or possess firearms.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

lost_shaman 2,858

lost_shaman
2,858

Why would a tyrannical government care? Its not hard to calculate strikes to leave isolated populations at the mercy of overwhelming invading forces. With over 7 billion on earth, it wouldn't be detrimental to thin out the population for any invading force.

If it was a US leader gone rouge with enough military behind them to effect a coup, reducing an armed population to 10% would make a takeover easy, and populations are quickly replenished or replaced.

If the locals are armed, then they justify mass killing like that. Again, reduce the population to a fraction and dominate.

A shotgun or Rifle in every home is no deterrent whatsoever in today's world against such scenarios. Weaponry is too sophisticated. Might as well break our some slingshots with those shotguns for all the effect they would have on a modern militarised force.

You sound like you are advocating genocide to reduce Earth's Human population!

All U.S. Military take an oath to defend the Constitution against enemies both Foreign and Domestic, the latter would include a rouge President. But imagine if hypothetically a large group of Socialists organized to the point they began setting off bombs and blowing up bridges and Courthouses and other infrastructure and blowing up gatherings of Right wing groups of people. If that happened Martial Law could be invoked and the National Guard would be called up to neutralize these groups, but the National Guard can't be everywhere or defend smaller communities, here in such a hypothetical scenario Armed Citizens will be the ones defending their small communities and homes and property and Families.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Myles 12,324

Myles
12,324

You said that it is because the privilege of owning guns is more important than lost lives. I commented that you were correct. Just like motorcycles, swimming pools, trampolines and wood burning stoves. Many people get hurt and die from them, but we are not willing to give up our ability to own them.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Myles 12,324

Myles
12,324

More people would die from a lack of wood burning stoves from freezing or lack of proper cooking than deaths from Guns by far!

That may be true. I have a gas fired boiler and a gas oven. However, I also have a wood burning stove that I use from time to time to supplement. Also use it for ambience. I like the feel, smell, sound and sight of wood burning in it. It is dangerous and many people die each year from them. I feel that is an acceptable risk because I want to keep my wood burning stove. The government could rule that anyone with access to other kinds of heat (gas, electric, oil) cannot have a wood burning stove. I wouldn't go for that.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

lost_shaman 2,858

lost_shaman
2,858

That may be true. I have a gas fired boiler and a gas oven. However, I also have a wood burning stove that I use from time to time to supplement. Also use it for ambience. I like the feel, smell, sound and sight of wood burning in it. It is dangerous and many people die each year from them. I feel that is an acceptable risk because I want to keep my wood burning stove. The government could rule that anyone with access to other kinds of heat (gas, electric, oil) cannot have a wood burning stove. I wouldn't go for that.

I helped my Father build a custom house based on the design of Yurts (round rooms) from scratch from the ground up. We started and finished the first room about 10 years ago and it's only source of heat is a small wood burning Stove with a cooktop and he has never had any major problem with it, we've replaced the chimney pipe on it once since then and you have to make sure you don't have the Flue closed when you light it or you'll smoke up the place which has happened before but it's otherwise been pretty safe as far as I can tell.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Gunn 4,543

Gunn
4,543

2nd Amendment Supporter

Member

4,543

3,522 posts

Gender:Male

Location:Florida, United States

Fix the mental health system first, then we can talk about gun control.

When I see people saying things like this I wonder if they even stop to think before they engage their mouth. Insurgencies happen all the time and are generally successful in causing a truce or peace treaty. Vietnam and Afghanistan come to mind...

Yeah that's interesting. You brought up similar historical events that happened in those two countries. And when you mention Afghanistan, I'm sure you're talking about when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and the U.S. supplied them with much better fire power (military grade weapons) to repel the Soviet Union Armies. It was like the U.S. gave the Soviet Union a dose of their own medicine or payback for the Soviets supplying the opposing Vietnamese with better fire power.

But do you know who I think would likely supply better firepower in a resistance\insurrectionists against a rogue/tyrant government in the U.S.? Believe it or not...the frigin' Mexican Cartels man! Man those guys are somehow able to acquire machine guns, explosives, Claymore mines, grenade launchers, and rocket launchers. And well since they already sell guns along with drugs to common criminals here in the U.S., what's to say they wouldn't make trades or sell resistance groups all those type of military grade weapons in such a hypothetical situation? I bet they would, just for the helluva it to make a crap load of money. I wouldn't put it past them.

Check this out, this what the Mexican government seized from them over the years and I'll bet that's just a drop in the bucket of what the Cartels really have.

Share on other sites

OverSword 40,929

OverSword
40,929

Well that makes sense, if you’re not allowed to vote or drink, you shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun.

And there is the rub. You can vote when you're 18, you can go to prison when you're 18, you can theoretically be drafted when you're 18. Either all of that should be changed to age 21 as well, or when you're 18, you are an adult and should be trusted with all of the rights, privileges and responsibilities associated with that designation. I think we should call for consistency.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Farmer77 24,474

Farmer77
24,474

Forum Divinity

Member

24,474

21,022 posts

Gender:Male

Location:The Desert

“Of all forms of tyranny, the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny of mere wealth, the tyranny of a plutocracy,” - T. R.

And there is the rub. You can vote when you're 18, you can go to prison when you're 18, you can theoretically be drafted when you're 18. Either all of that should be changed to age 21 as well, or when you're 18, you are an adult and should be trusted with all of the rights, privileges and responsibilities associated with that designation. I think we should call for consistency.

IDK there are many professions which you must be a certain age to do for safety purposes. Should they all be forced to conform to that pattern as well?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Golden Duck 5,791

Golden Duck
5,791

You sound like you are advocating genocide to reduce Earth's Human population!

All U.S. Military take an oath to defend the Constitution against enemies both Foreign and Domestic, the latter would include a rouge President. But imagine if hypothetically a large group of Socialists organized to the point they began setting off bombs and blowing up bridges and Courthouses and other infrastructure and blowing up gatherings of Right wing groups of people. If that happened Martial Law could be invoked and the National Guard would be called up to neutralize these groups, but the National Guard can't be everywhere or defend smaller communities, here in such a hypothetical scenario Armed Citizens will be the ones defending their small communities and homes and property and Families.

How long has that Military Oath been around?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

psyche101 31,678

psyche101
31,678

The phrase "A well regulated Militia" has never really been defined as far as I know, so this is why different groups around the Country do in fact sometimes form "Militias" and go out in the woods and train.

Regulate is defined as controlled or manged. Despite many US posters claiming that we had guns confiscated, we didn't, we have 'regulation'

Random bunches of people deciding to form an armed group is not regulation either, it strikes me as the very opposite of regulation, as does making guns so freely available.

18 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

We may soon see a lot more of that type of activity in the near future if things keep going like they are going now!

What exactly are you referring to?

18 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

At any rate the part of the 2nd Amendment we are actually concerned with here is the second part, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This has been upheld by the courts with a couple of exceptions, i.e. Felons and Mentally ill persons for example are not allowed to own or possess firearms.

But in no way describes a well regulated militia, which is the point of it altogether.

From my point of view such easy access to deadly weapons is defying the idea of a well regulated militia.

psyche101 31,678

psyche101
31,678

You sound like you are advocating genocide to reduce Earth's Human population!

I cannot even begin to fathom how you drew that conclusion.

19 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

All U.S. Military take an oath to defend the Constitution against enemies both Foreign and Domestic, the latter would include a rouge President.

Then that's not a good reason to own a gun.

19 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

But imagine if hypothetically a large group of Socialists organized to the point they began setting off bombs and blowing up bridges and Courthouses and other infrastructure and blowing up gatherings of Right wing groups of people. If that happened Martial Law could be invoked and the National Guard would be called up to neutralize these groups, but the National Guard can't be everywhere or defend smaller communities, here in such a hypothetical scenario Armed Citizens will be the ones defending their small communities and homes and property and Families.

That's not the common excuse of 'my government might attack me so I need a gun' which is what we were discussing and is a ridiculous claim.

But regardless, do you feel that is a good reason to arm anyone and everyone? And just how likely do you think such a scenario is? The most unrest I have seen amongst your people is the way Trump divided the nation when elected, and it didn't happen then so why would it at all?

You don't see a massive dark side to what you have proposed? Like people are shooting each other now over carpark altercations and Facebook fights, that level of tension could only breed lawlessness given what we have already witnessed.

Guns maintain a status quo they don't improve any society, they can only make them worse.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

psyche101 31,678

psyche101
31,678

You said that it is because the privilege of owning guns is more important than lost lives. I commented that you were correct. Just like motorcycles, swimming pools, trampolines and wood burning stoves. Many people get hurt and die from them, but we are not willing to give up our ability to own them.

They have nothing to do with each other. A gun doesn't get you to work it doesn't keep you from dying of cold.

A gun and the things you have mentioned are completely irrelevant of of other. Unrelated. Dying from one source doesn't mean you should encourage practises that result in more death. That makes no sense at all.

You are just deflecting the argument, your not making a reasonable rebuttal.

People don't ride bikes into schools running over people and killing many, nor have I ever heard of someone dragging a wood stove into a school and murdering a dozen innocent students.

You have created a red herring nothing more. But then again, most US Posters hide behind that irrelevant information often. It's deflection that removes focus but nothing else. Guns are a privelidge, and an often abused privelidge as the threads can attest with regular gun related deaths showing up on these boards, working and keeping warm are survival requirements.

Your logic means that you should also remove laws on hard core drugs and encourage people to take them too. If people die on motorcycles then they should die from drugs too as apparently going to school should be accepted as a possible death sentence.

I've asked you before but you have not answered. I can see why you disagree with the posts I have but I can't see why you are confused. What do you find so terribly confusing? The points seem pretty easy to follow to me.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

lost_shaman 2,858

lost_shaman
2,858

Since the Constitution was adopted. Article VI of the Constitution requires all Senators, Representatives, executive and judicial Officers to take an Oath to the Constitution. The Constitution does not spell out the wording of the Oath but left it up to Congress to prescribe the wording. Since then it has changed a couple of times until it's current form adopted on July 11, 1868 in 5 U.S.C. 3331 where all federal employees are required to take the Oath where it now reads...

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”